Alex Blaze

Obama to Run for Reelection in 2012

Filed By Alex Blaze | April 04, 2011 3:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: America, Barack Obama, Democrats, economic policy, election campaigns, republican

Bil posted the news you've been sitting at the edge of your seat for: Barack Obama's going to run for reelection in 2012. official_portrait_of_barack_obama.jpgHe kicked off his campaign with a Real Americans Telling It Like It Is video; Katherine from Colorado says, "I think [Obama's 2012 campaign] needs to reflect the changes that we've seen in the last two and a half years."

Indeed. The first change:

President Barack Obama is no longer the outsider candidate who fueled his bid for the White House in 2008 with a flood of small donations from new and young voters inspired by his message of hope and change.

As a sitting president he has far greater authority and media access and his 2012 re-election campaign is expected to raise $1 billion, which is unprecedented in U.S. politics.[...]

Jim Messina, a former White House deputy chief of staff who will run Obama's, has been telling big supporters they will need to collect $350,000 each. His campaign headquarters will be in Chicago will be staffed with White House veterans.

Obama made his message clear on Tuesday at a $30,800-plate fund-raiser at a popular New York restaurant.

I was listening to this on Democracy Now last week and Alberto walked in so I had to explain what was going on. He said, "You have such a strange system in America."

You see, what other countries call "bribery" we call "democracy."

Is it any wonder Obama and Congress did so little for the working class over these last few years? Even if I sent him $100 it's not like he's going to pay more attention to that than to the $350,000 donors.

I'm sure some sort of show will be put on as Obama takes on whatever vile clown the GOP kicks out of its car and I'll end up voting for him again. I just hope that I can be spared all the people who say that I should be excited to have another four years with a corporate Dem in the White House calling for austerity, telling health care advocates to go rot while he opposes the middle-of-the-road, technocratic solution to our health care problem, and lying about how the economy works in an effort to cut social spending. And that's just one issue.

Lots of people's enthusiasm is down for the next go 'round (that's probably why Obama knows he can't depend on small donors again), and it's not because I had particularly high standards two years ago thinking that the man was going to change the country into a radical queer hippie paradise (I do know people who thought that, and I'd imagine they're more excited than I am for 2012). Getting mad at people who aren't enthusiastic isn't going to suddenly make them enthusiastic, and saying that Obama's better than the Republican shouldn't (even though that'll be enough for some people). It's next to tribalism to unite around the shared hatred of a clearly-defined enemy who must be destroyed instead of organizing around common values and a shared understanding of how the world works, and tribalism only benefits the people in charge of the tribe.

The good thing is that, with people being more knowledgeable this time around about what these elections mean, perhaps we can avoid letting one person co-opt the concept of social change for the purpose of career advancement.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

No, probably not but maybe some skip the election, and didn't a lot of independents vote for the guy? Granted those are issues where independents might be more to the Right than Left, but Obama promised a "change" in those areas... I wonder if they won't be as enthusiastic after being lied to.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | April 5, 2011 5:54 AM

Forget the video. It's meant for people who enjoy being victimized.

Now look at the real Obama.

"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." Mark Hanna, Republican National Committee Chairman (1896)

In that sense, Obama was being honest when he betrayed health care reform. "A new figure, based on an exclusive analysis created for Raw Story by the Center for Responsive Politics, shows that President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival John McCain. McCain took in $7,758,289, the Center found... Currently, the Center's website shows that Obama received $19,462,986 from the health sector, which includes health professionals ($11.7m), health services/HMOs ($1.4m), hospitals/nursing homes ($3.3m) and pharmaceuticals/health products ($2.1m). Miscellaneous health donations (from which Obama received $860,411) are also factored into the current total health sector numbers but are not accessible on the site." Raw Story

Do you ever wonder why no company officials or owners have ever been indicted in the aftermath of the murders of oil workers by BP and Haliburton and miners by Massey Energy. Obama and Congress members from both parties frequently get large donations from both parties, which increased markedly after BP and Haliburton murdered 11 oilrig workers when Deepwater Horizon crashed and burned in the Gulf. "BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals." Politico

While not liable for murder charges other major contributors to Obama got very good returns on their investments:

GoldmanSachs 'contributed' $994,795 and got $12,900,000,000 in handout/bailouts

Citigroup 'contributed' $701,290 and got $330,000,000,000 in handout/bailouts

JP Morgan Chase & Co 'contributed' $695,132 and got $25,000,000,000 in handout/bailouts

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney contributed $514,881 and got $10,000,000,000 in handout/bailouts

Very good returns indeed. They amount, along with all the other handouts, to the criminal greatest transfer of wealth in human history. American workers and consumers got raped and they know it.

Here's why:"I believe all of you are as open and willing to listen as anyone else in America. I believe you care about this country and the future we are leaving to the next generation. I believe your work to be a part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America. I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal." Barack Obama, speaking to the masters of "American" finance capitalism at the headquarters of NASDAQ, Wall Street, New York City, September 17, 2007" Black Agenda Report

The problem isn't limited to Obama's wretched venality - the rot extends to every level of government and deep into the sewers of Democrat and Republican politics. They cannot and will not reform themselves. All they can do is occasionally rebrand with an all new 'lesser evil', who soon turns out to be just an ordinary run of the mill hustler.

"... Obama played the anti-war, anti-Wall Street party crasher to his grassroots base, which imagined itself leading an insurgency against the two-party monopoly through dogged organization and donations gathered from lemonade stands and loose change found in the crevices of the couch. Meanwhile, he took more money from Wall Street than any other presidential candidate, swallowed the Democratic party establishment in one gulp after defeating Hillary Clinton, then pursued "bipartisanship" with crazed Republicans once in the White House." Alternet

I'll happily vote for him again.

Once again, Obama demonstrates that he is, by far, a better politician than he is a president.

Declaring early was a shrewd move, because he has already shown what fundraising power he has; and by declaring early he is cutting off the seed money that might otherwise flow to a few of his Democratic competitors.

The way I feel about the Dems and Repubs is pretty simple. A plague on both their houses. And yet, I'll likely still vote for Obama in 2012. Because indifference is better than hatred, and it seems as if that is our choice.

Which is sad. I'd love to have someone to vote for, rather than someone to vote against.